The Portland daily press., 1887-04-29
SUPERIOR COURT.
BEFORE JUDGE noNNEY.

THURsDAY.-Fr II. Plat, assignee, vs. Hol-
man 8. Melcher This suit and seven others all
depend upon the same state of facts. The other
suits are by the same plaintiff against Clarence
A. weston, Ephratm Nj. Stedman, ct al, John c.
Dennis, ct AL. Willard IL. Woodbury. ct ais.
EhSha nj. Jordan and Richard O. Conaut ct ais
In september, 1884, the firm of Berger, Hurl-
burt q Livingston through w. G.. Soule, q broker
IN THIS city, made sales of merchandise to these
defendants and the merchandise was shipped to
them at Portland. About the time of its arrival
here the firm in New York made au assignment,
10 Frank III; Platt, the plaintiff, in these suits and
notice OF that assignment telegraphed to Mr..
Soule, and that all sales were for tile account of
Platt, assignee, which notice was Immediately
communicated by MIR. Soule to these defendants.
In October following Irving 0. Whiting 4 Co.
OF Boston, creditors of Berger, Hurl6urt s.
L..Ssasston commenced suit in the Supreme
judicial Court in this county against Berger
Hurlburt q Livingston and these merchants above
named were summoned as trustees of funds in
their hands belonging to the New York firm.
That suit was finally determined I'm favor of the
defendants In June, 1886.
In the meantime, February 1885, Mr.. Plat sued
out the Wris In these suits TO recover for the
chandize sold 10 them by Soule for and on account
OF the New York firm, and which the merchants
we mere reaay ana anypas to pay # 1t was not for
which arises is, shall these merchants, the defend
ants in these suits, pay interest upon their several
debts due Plat as assignee OF Berger, Hurlburt g.
Livingstone. The counsel for the plaintiff clgims
that they are not exempt from the general rule
t nnn interest a at the rate Of six per cent
Is allowed in the nature of damages for
the detention Of the money. The defendents'
counsel claim that different rule prevails where
the defendants are prevented by trustee process
from paying tho amounts due; that these mer-
chants have been ready, willing anxious to pay
this indebtedness II they could safely have done
so and that II is a hardship upon them to be
obliged to pay interest and at larger rate than
the money has been actually worth. The plaintiff
claims that the merchants have had the use of
the money for this length of time in their business
and II is no more than right that they should pay
for 1t. The authorities cited by the counsel upon
both sides show that the decisions of the New
England States upon the question have not been
uniform. Decision reserved.
Mattocks, Coonbs and Neal, for the plaintiffs.
-, f. w. Robinson, Enoch Knight Holmes and
Payson, b. ID. Verrill, for the defendants in the
several cases
Edward W. Eye VS.. Daniel Friel Replevin :or
atrunk and wearing apparel for the alleged value
OF $46. When the Grand Army Encampment was
here IN June, 1885, the plaintiff came here from
Calais got into bad company, got drunk and
brought up in Daniel Frieps boarding house
where he remained for several days. He claims
that Friel supplied him with liquor, kept him
drunk all the time. took his new suit of clothes
supplied him with rags In the semblance OF clothes
IN exchange, took his trunk and contents and
turned him into the street. Friel claims that he
keeps anice, genteel sailors boarding house and
never gave the plaintiff any liquor; that he
bought the goods and suit OF the plaintiff white he
was boarding with him at this time. Decision re-
A. w. Bradbury, for plaintiff
ID. A. Meaher for defendent